Don’t always distinguish

In the (corrupted?) Scholastic tradition, “distinguish” has become a fraternity password or cheerleader-slogan. All problems and paradoxes are seen as mechanically calling forth the need to “distinguish!” The irony is that what is most loveable in the great Scholastics is not their distinctions but their syntheses and unifications. Distinction itself is purely ad hoc, arbitrary and hateful unless it can reduce to some evident principle that allows for the distinction itself.

thenyssan said,

That’s weird. In my dealings lately and analysis of men’s minds, what I have noticed above all is a failure to distinguish and make necessary distinctions, resulting in confusion, frustration then finally either anger or apathy (they just give up). That giving up becomes habituat and impulses to contrary are even resisted. For me, this is the reason most men are unbelievers: even though their instincts tell them there must be a logical reason or explanation for everything; nonetheless, the innumerable difficulties and contradictions they are exposed to make it almost impossible for them to end in any sort of wholistic synthesis. They cannot make any sense of this world. Hence, they choose not to care and busy their minds with other, seemingly more practical or important matters, others known as distractions. “Good evening, my dear Television! I must say I missed you today.”